Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Funding sought to crash 747 into derelict building

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Funding sought to crash 747 into derelict building

Old 13th Jul 2016, 14:45
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,547
I am genuinely curious as to what outcome from this would satisfy you enough to stop.
He won't stop. Twice he's mentioned the readership numbers of the thread, and seems to be keeping a daily log of them. That there seems to be his aim, to spin it out as long as he can and see what readership numbers he can get. It seems to be one of the conspiracy loonies aims, the more hits represent greater success. If only he realised people are only reading to see what the lunatic is saying now.
megan is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 15:33
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Landroger View Post
Most structures I am aware of have a safety factor. True? The overall factors on WTC – which you seem to regard as a miracle it survived as long as it did without disaster, with its shaky and Heath Robinson design – from what I can make out, are the outer columns could support five times the load above them and the core columns three times the load above them. I know this from a lot of reading. If you want to dispute it, you go and find the relevant data.
You are making the claim - it's up to you to substantiate it.

But FWIW structures do not have "a safety factor". Really - they don't! Structures have anything up to dozens of specific failure modes, each of which has a different margin which would be anything from a few percent up to factors of about two or three for most normal structures. Going any higher than that can be a problem because the weight of the extra structure needed for greater margins is often than the greater margin gained (a common finding in engineering).

Each failure mode has a different margin for two reasons:
1. Each loading mode has a different variance, and those with lower variance need smaller margins. Keeping the margins to smaller values reduces the structure weight, reducing the structural loading and thereby reducing the probability of overstress. [this is structural engineering 101, BTW - I should be charging money for the education]

2. In some (many, often most) cases the "sizing" of a piece of structure (thickness of a web or depth of a beam) has influence on several failure modes. Engineers, being not quite as daft as the Truther Tendency would have people believe, take the largest of the relevant numbers to size the component. So (for example) wing rib thicknesses might be "sized" for stiffness (buckling resistance) with a margin of 15%, giving a structural margin for shear strength of over 700%, but that doesn't mean that there was ever a *need* for a 700% margin (and it actually means that a relatively cheap and simple aluminium can be used because the grade doesn't affect the stiffness that much).

No structure is designed with margins of 500% as a design objective. Oh, I have no doubt you read something which seemed to say that, but you're not an engineer and probably misunderstood what you were reading (or more likely the author of the website you got it from did the misunderstanding - no matter). Looking at the tower design I would suspect that the materials were sized for stiffness because very few of the shape elements have either diaphragms or triangulation - this is common in steel-framed buildings. If the structure components are sized for stiffness then it's almost inevitable that they'll have excessive margins for compressive loading, and I suspect this is where the 300-500% numbers your web-buddy had found came from. Which is great, but it misses the point. At less than 500degC the stiffness numbers (which had the smaller margins) fall off the cliff, rendering the compressive strength numbers irrelevant as the components buckle and the building collapses.

These are things real engineers understand, but sock-puppets need to spend a few years in a university before they are ready to join in any discussions...

9/11 was an inside job.
Oh - how do you know that?

There has never been a proper, criminal investigation into the events of 9/11 and there should be.
If there has never been a proper, criminal investigation then you cannot possibly know that it was an inside job - you can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. That's the bit all you loons gloss over.

Actually that's not 100% true. There is one case in which both statements could be accurate - that case would be if you were one of the people who were involved in the "inside job". Is that it? is that what you are trying to tell everyone? That you yourself are confessing to be one of the conspirators in this infamous act of mass murder?

If so please just come out and say so - it would save a lot of blather.

PDR

Last edited by PDR1; 13th Jul 2016 at 17:25.
PDR1 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 17:00
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Shitloads of shits!

I had no idea my remark would cause these impenetrable walls of text. Wow.

Landroger:
Steel don't have to melt to collapse. It just has to bend enough. Very simple. That is what happened. Bending. Bending due to heat. All steel bends. Trains' rails bend du to simple sun heating. Very very simple principle. Thermal expansion. You know this. Once the floor anchor points bent enough the floors just fell down, dragging the walls and everything else with them. Very easy.

I am from Sweden and have no further interest in any conspiracy theory or looney bin story.

I am merely astounded by the precision flying they did to crash into the Pentagon. Hell, a huge Boeing handled like a Cessna, crashing into the bottom floor of a building (being what? 2m above ground?) without any other signs then some knocked over electricity poles? I mean, come one, that must be some serious acrobatic skills to do that. I would expect a low level bad flyer to crash the whole houplaa waaay before colliding with any buildings. Was that particular hijacker some high time simmer or what? Did he just get lucky? Or could I do that too, after renting said Cessna for a few hours? THAT would be a very very chilling thought.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 17:24
  #364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
TURIN & megan,
He won't stop as long as he has an audience, it is a key characteristic of a devout Conspiracy Theorist:

Inability To Withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking for the technique of avoiding a focused discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond directly to the pointed objections skeptics (knowledgable people) make to the previous lot.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 20:06
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
Landroger,

I seem to recall you saying something about NIST ignoring the 3 Laws of Newton,
Original quote by Landroger: It’s okay though, you can choose any one, they were all popular at one time, although NIST finally settled on Crush Down-Crush Up, which disregards Newton’s Laws just as much as the others.
Are you sure, as an Engineer, you fully understand the 3 Laws of Newton and how they relate to the WTC Towers collapses? Can you explain why the NIST report and the methodology used within doesn't meet your Newton Law requirements? Which of the three laws does the NIST presentation disregard? Is it #1, #2 or #3? Is it a combination of #1 & #2, or #1 & #3 or #2 & #3 or all three?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 21:21
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 64
Posts: 4
The essential questions to be asked at the scene of a crime:

Who, What, When, Where, How and Why, Why, Why, Why Why, Why.

That will cost you £4,000 if you attend an advanced crime management and investigation course. The first five questions will establish what happened, the last six questions will give you the reason and motivation. Off you go...
G0ULI is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 22:36
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,621
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles View Post
I am merely astounded by the precision flying they did to crash into the Pentagon. Hell, a huge Boeing handled like a Cessna, crashing into the bottom floor of a building (being what? 2m above ground?) without any other signs then some knocked over electricity poles? I mean, come one, that must be some serious acrobatic skills to do that.
Nope, does not take serious acrobatic skills to do that. It does take being able to direct the plane and to deal with relative motion. Put the point of impact in one spot in the windshield and keep it there. There is no "flare" for landing in the chosen maneuver. Most pilots with a few flights under their belts can handle that much relative motion management.


(I seem to recall that the aircraft actually hit a little bit short but of course with the forward velocity that was close enough to hit an enormous building). For their purposes, good enough.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:10
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Lonewolf_50

I can't wrap my head around this.. so you are saying I could do the same thing, just going to my flight school, spend some hours in a Cessna and then make world wide news?

Is it really that simple?

I get the whole "they don't need to use the plane ever again" argument, but can a simple Sapiens really accomplish that much devastation with so little? Am I just having under-confidence in the capabilities of dedicated people?
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:19
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
I am merely astounded by the precision flying they did to crash into the Pentagon. Hell, a huge Boeing handled like a Cessna, crashing into the bottom floor of a building (being what? 2m above ground?) without any other signs then some knocked over electricity poles? I mean, come one, that must be some serious acrobatic skills to do that. I would expect a low level bad flyer to crash the whole houplaa waaay before colliding with any buildings. Was that particular hijacker some high time simmer or what? Did he just get lucky? Or could I do that too, after renting said Cessna for a few hours? THAT would be a very very chilling thought.
I can't speak to your statements about the hijackers and any 'precision flying' that may have been done, but I can tell you two friends were sitting in their cars on their way to work, stuck in typical traffic on the Virginia side coming into DC that morning, and saw and heard the 757 roar low overhead on its way to the crash site at the Pentagon which by the way, doesn't have much in the way of structure on the side from which the aircraft came.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:32
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,886
Mr snuggles.
Book yourself half an hour in a 757 flight sim. Ask the instructor to set you up in the cruise. Point the nose at the Pentagon and try it.
It really isn't hard.
TURIN is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:39
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Oh dear lord of mercy.

I had no idea it was that simple. Background checks on flight school applicants next maybe?

I saw a very amusing conspiracy theory lecture on YT. A pilot, mind you, claiming to be some 757 driver, also claiming that the plane that hit Pentagon did not hit, but threw missiles at it and then levelled off and got to a derelict airport some kms away from the P, offloaded pax and disappeared. He was totally serious about this and the following cover up and I was like "dude, do you even logic?". You have some funny guys over there!
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:46
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 64
Posts: 4
More than a century of development has been devoted to making aircraft more capable, safer and easier to fly. A Boeing 767 has essentially the same controls as a basic Cessna trainer and responds to control inputs the same way.

All the complication is because of duplicate engines, advanced monitoring systems, air conditioning and comfort for the passengers, and automation of various functions.

Switch off all the technology and you can still fly a modern airliner the old fashioned way, looking out the cockpit windows and pointing the aircraft in the direction you want to go. It really is that simple, if you are not worried about landing or damaging the aircraft.

Disregard all the circuit breakers and programable buttons around the flat screen displays and you are left with stick, throttle, rudder and a magnetic compass, the same as have been used for the last century. Machines are designed to be as easy as possible to use in order to accomplish a task with the absolute minimum of effort. So it should come as no surprise that with a few hours orientation, even a low hours private pilot could take manual control and fly a commercial jet. There is a hell of a lot more training required to actually do so safely, but you get the idea. Even a PC simulator might give you enough knowledge to manage the basics.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:49
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
G0ULI

Thanks, what you write makes a lot of sense. I just didn't think that Cessna pilots would even know where to start in a 757 because of all the knobs and buttons and flashy displays and whatnot. It is a tribute to the Boeing that it is this easy to do it, but also a very chilling thought that anyone with the wrong mindset could do it that easily.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 10:59
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
They don't need to know where to start - the aeroplane was already flying in the cruise when they took over the cockpit. From there all they need to know is where the airspeed, heading and altitude numbers are shown (which are fairly obvious, but you can find with a few seconds of googling to be sure). There are lots of ways they could navigate to their planned attack path, from using the aircraft systems and displays to looking out of the window and following landmarks & features . For these basic manoeuvres they only need to use the throttles and the stick (they can probably forget the pedals even exist because no one is giving them extra points for style). From there they visually acquire the target, use the stick or trim to drop the nose and use the throttles to keep the speed below the placarded Vne. Then they just keep the target framed in the window and fly it in - the only thing that would prevent my grandmother from being able to do it would be the detail that she died in 1978...

With a small amount of research and/or training they could do some of this using the autopilot, but it's not essential.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 11:13
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,847
Mr Snuggles - Unlike most of the pilots on here, I have very limited flying experience, a total of around 60 hours, all on Cessnas, and I am damn sure with a brief Boeing conversion (learning about the "knobs and buttons and flashy displays") I could hit The Pentagon. As other more experienced pilots have said, it wouldn't be too difficult. The tricky bit would be landing the aircraft safely - not crashing it!
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 11:18
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Thankyou too PDR1 and Tankertrashnav

I have thought about this little detail since 9-11. I never dared ask anyone about it, fearing that I would be branded as just another looner-nutter. Thankyou all for answering me!

To be specific, just in case: I have no problems at all with anything official about the 9-11 attacks and what happened that day! It was just this specific detail about how they managed to slam into a building 2m above ground without leaving a mark anywhere that I just could not understand. I do appreciate your information about this!

I guess, now you know I am not one of those MS Flight simmers who claims to be a pilot. Silver linings and that.... ;-)

Last edited by MrSnuggles; 14th Jul 2016 at 11:20. Reason: thanking Tankertrashnav also!
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 11:21
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,686
As all before have said, point yourself at your target. Chances are pretty darn good, you can hit it - particularly if 'nuances' such as landing are not a required part of the exercise.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 13:58
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 64
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Mr Snuggles - Unlike most of the pilots on here, I have very limited flying experience, a total of around 60 hours, all on Cessnas, and I am damn sure with a brief Boeing conversion (learning about the "knobs and buttons and flashy displays") I could hit The Pentagon. As other more experienced pilots have said, it wouldn't be too difficult. The tricky bit would be landing the aircraft safely - not crashing it!
Statistics of the Kamikazes (1945) prove the contrary
A very little number of them (who was able to fly to their target) performed a hit
jcjeant is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 14:04
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
The terrorist credited with flying the 757 into the Pentagon was Hani Hanijour, a Saudi Arabian that migrated to the US. When it came to piloting, he was not an amateur. He obtained a valid commercial pilot's certificate in Phoenix Arizona while living there. He also took some Sim training sessions at a different school before departing to Saudi Arabia to find work which didn't happen and he returned to the US. So I guess he had more experience in flying than most terrorist would have.

Last edited by Turbine D; 14th Jul 2016 at 14:06. Reason: word correction
Turbine D is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 14:10
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
Statistics of the Kamikazes (1945) prove the contrary
A very little number of them (who was able to fly to their target) performed a hit
Maybe it was because they were being shot at from nearly all directions and didn't quite make it all the way to the target?
Turbine D is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.